So what kind of decision can we expect today? Do the owners/commish actually rely on these presentations or is it a formality at this point? If this is like trial and they don't already have their minds pretty much made up, I can't imagine we'll see a decision today.

AbsolutNET wrote:So what kind of decision can we expect today? Do the owners/commish actually rely on these presentations or is it a formality at this point? If this is like trial and they don't already have their minds pretty much made up, I can't imagine we'll see a decision today.

Throwdown wrote:Sounds like Hansen has brought the whole clique with him this morning, he's got McGinn, & Constantine already, now add Ballmer, and the Nordstroms, our boys rolled up deep and bank accounts flaunting.

Maybe McSchwinn will promise to add some more bike lanes to the new arena

Throwdown wrote:Sounds like Hansen has brought the whole clique with him this morning, he's got McGinn, & Constantine already, now add Ballmer, and the Nordstroms, our boys rolled up deep and bank accounts flaunting.

Maybe McSchwinn will promise to add some more bike lanes to the new arena

I read that there was a bike valet, maybe it was a joke or not, i dunno.

WHERE IS PINK AND SEATOWN? MY NERVES ARE JUMPIN! I need my ADHD pill pushers types on here.

Blitzer88 wrote:After listening to the Stern presser............I came away not feeling that great. I could see us being stabbed in the back by the NBA again.

If David Stern came out wearing a Sonics jersey you'd convince yourself that it's a bad sign because he likely won't want to limit the vintage appeal of his wardrobe selection by bringing back the team.

This was played down the middle, as expected, and from all indications the Sac group is not offering a matching bid, which is game over.

Blitzer88 wrote:After listening to the Stern presser............I came away not feeling that great. I could see us being stabbed in the back by the NBA again.

If David Stern came out wearing a Sonics jersey you'd convince yourself that it's a bad sign because he likely won't want to limit the vintage appeal of his wardrobe selection by bringing back the team.

This was played down the middle, as expected, and from all indications the Sac group is not offering a matching bid, which is game over.

Question to Stern: "Does Sacramento need to improve their offer?" Stern: "That is not one of the issues." - Question posed to Stern today at his presser

You think the NBA will force a lesser offer on an owner? You think other owners will do that to themselves? You think Stern was honest and up front and that everything is being done in earnest and out in the open? It's hard to take statements he makes, especially when he's been blatantly and purposefully neutral in a press conference. We'll see, but unless Sac matches or the Maloofs are feeling charitable, the Sonics are a lock to return, and that team simply is not worth as much in Sacramento as it is in Seattle, that's a huge hurdle.

It's also worth noting that KJ even made it a point to refer to the Sac offer as a "back up offer" that can be accepted if Seattle "doesn't pan out". So in that instance, I suppose matching wouldn't be the pressing issue. If the league denies the PSA, they figure that the Maloofs can then look at these back up offers. If that's the case, that also likely means that the Seattle PSA will be judged on its own merits and not on anything coming out of Sacramento. It's either a competing bid or its a back up bid. Seattle is in the lead still, even KJ says so.

Blitzer88 wrote:After listening to the Stern presser............I came away not feeling that great. I could see us being stabbed in the back by the NBA again.

If David Stern came out wearing a Sonics jersey you'd convince yourself that it's a bad sign because he likely won't want to limit the vintage appeal of his wardrobe selection by bringing back the team.

This was played down the middle, as expected, and from all indications the Sac group is not offering a matching bid, which is game over.

I only say that because I did not like that he said the decision would probably not be made till after the 18th/19th of April. Any extra time helps KJs group. Additionally, listening to 710 today Danny O'Neil and Jim Moore were saying that now this whole thing seems like it is a 50/50 toss up and any type of "tie" in terms of issues goes to Sacramento.

Heck even Kevin Calabro sounded down when he said is was 50/50 at this point and time.

Last edited by Blitzer88 on Wed Apr 03, 2013 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Additionally Brian McCann, SI legal analyst, who has been saying that we have a very good proposal and chance to get the Kings has changed his stance and said that we are now at 50/50 like others have said. Today was supposed to make me feel better and more confident, but it has done the exact opposite. I hate being me sometimes........

Michael McCann ‏@McCannSportsLaw 1hSounds like NBA owners disagree if Kings should move to Seattle. This is where David Stern- described as a judge among owners- earns his pay.

I also look at it this way, how could the NBA take the team out of Sac-town when they have a viable ownership as well as a viable(enough) arena plan, when the Sonics left we didn't really have either of those things. If Sac-town is able to put their pieces even more together I just see them keeping the Kings even though Chris and Co. already have a purchase agreement. I know I am being a HUGE negative influence, but I just don't want to get my hopes up and than have them stomped on again by the NBA if things go against us again......heck even Throw said he was nervous about today and he has always been Mr. positive. I just wish they approved the sale and such when it was first announced.

Throwdown wrote:I still don't expect to be screwed, the nba risks losing aa market foor a generation if they leave us empty handed. I don't think they will do that.

The NBA risks a lot more than losing the market. They risk being stuck with the Maloofs if this falls through. "Yes, take a lesser offer so we can keep a team in a crappier market simply for sentimentality reasons."

The presser by KJ was a freakin joke, and I don't care what Stern says, he is a lawyer and well versed in speaking from both sides of his mouth. They are going to vote "Yes" on this, because no owner wants to be told who to sell to and for how much.

On top of all that, we have better numbers and all that

----------------------------"Plus I hate the seattle stadium the **** place is too loud, gave me a headache watchin the game." ~ Some 9er fan

Blitzer88 wrote:After listening to the Stern presser............I came away not feeling that great. I could see us being stabbed in the back by the NBA again.

If David Stern came out wearing a Sonics jersey you'd convince yourself that it's a bad sign because he likely won't want to limit the vintage appeal of his wardrobe selection by bringing back the team.

This was played down the middle, as expected, and from all indications the Sac group is not offering a matching bid, which is game over.

Question to Stern: "Does Sacramento need to improve their offer?" Stern: "That is not one of the issues." - Question posed to Stern today at his presser

This is how the original Sonics should have been fought for. But the State didn't want to back Balmer and company's solution and antagonized Stern as well. KJ on the other hand has gone to the well more than once to use his influence to hold off losing the Kings the past few years.

Some time after the NFL draft this will all end. Based on Sacramento saying they can have a new building by 2015 while Seattle is thinking 2017, I am not as positive that this will go down for Seattle. The only question I have is whether the NBA feels they can force the Maloofs to deal with the Sacramento group? Sure seems that way. How belittling it must be to sell your majority ownership in a team, only to have the league listen to another group that has not dealt with you.

Not so fast... quite literally. Sac's Arena deal may be in further limbo than they let on.

The provision thrown out by Judge Roesch changed the rules for legal challenges to certain developments under the California Environmental Quality Act. Under the law, anyone suing to block a large-scale project that developed renewable energy or met green building standards had to bypass the lower courts and go straight to the courts of appeal. A group called the Planning and Conservation League sued, calling that provision unconstitutional because it limited the public's legal options. In a ruling from the bench last Friday, March 29, Judge Roesch agreed.

----------------------------"Plus I hate the seattle stadium the **** place is too loud, gave me a headache watchin the game." ~ Some 9er fan